Rubber Duck Plumbing & Heating

This is my very TL;DR rebuttal to the plumber’s diatribe against my initial review:
Specific quotes from plumber and responses:
«This review is slander against our company»
— Just wow.
«to tell me to call his tenant whos number we did not have to set time and day with her, he could not confirm the 4^th for the time set for her.»
— Not true. The time slot of 8am-​10am was confirmed. Furthermore, the plumber was given the tenants phone #
«We called on the 4^th 8:40 am no answer, He text me back at 10:12 am telling me I might miss her due to a funeral she will be gone most of the day. He texted me at 10:12 am 2hrs after what time he suggested I show up to be there closer to 8am so I do not miss her.»
— This is a distortion of the truth. I have no record of any phone calls at 8:40am. I do have a record of the plumber calling at 9:20am, which already was pushing the time window. I immediately contacted my tenant so that she could reach out to him to see if there was still enough time since this is the tail end of the 8−10am time slot. Again, the plumber did not answer his phone and a phone message was left. The tenant was available until 10:30am but we heard nothing from the plumber about whether he could come out. At 10:12am I texted the plumber that we are outside of the time slot and we will have to reschedule since the time window is now closed. To avoid any further miscommunication I asked that he coordinate with the tenant directly for a time slot that they could agree to and stick to. Please note that in all of my dealings with the plumber, at no point has he ever answered his phone so we could resolve any scheduling challenges right away. Also it is important to note that this was already the day after the contractor had responded to the warranty company that they would be able to perform same-​day service. Furthermore, the scheduling problems with the plumber continued for another 3 days until they finally were able to show up.
«not the contractor working around the owners schedule»
— This statement is staggering. Apparently with this business, the customer’s needs are subservient to the contractor.
«Our schd was set already and the tenant stated the problem went away»
— Not true. The tenant said that the clog appears to have cleared, but the work order stated two problems. 1 being the clog. 2. being the tank leaking water.
«we can not guarantee a time slot»
— Of course there are always extenuating circumstances, but a time slot is there for a reason and the contractor should set a time slot that is agreeable to both parties and reschedule promptly asap if anything changes
«The problem he reported was a stoppage only that is all not a runny toilet»
«The runny toilet was not part of his work order»
— Again, this is simply NOT TRUE. The clog and water leak was reported from the beginning with the warranty company and repeated several times.
«landlord caused the problem buy installing and low consumption water saver in the toilet and put a rock in the tank to take up volume to use less water he created his own problem»
— Not true at all. The flushing mechanism that broke was not a water saving flushing system. The rock was in there to hold down one part of the refill tube since by design of the flushing mechanism, the tube wouldn’t reliably stay in place due to the strong water pressure. The water displaced by the rock was negligible and the toilet functioned for years just fine with that slight adjustment.
«There is a pin that hold this retro fit kit together on the over flow tube to secure it and it was missing and it will not stay in place an it shifts when flushed and will cause it to run. His WARANTY policy dose not cover MISSING parts, it is not our decision if his warranty company will replace or deny the work.»
— This is just foolishness. The toilet has worked for years and with the flushing mechanism that broke, there were no missing parts unless one dislodged and fell off on its own accord, which is certainly possible. So because one small clip may have broken (or never existed in the first place with this particular flushing system design), and he is unfamiliar with this particular design and is assuming a flapper system design that has a very different set of parts and configuration, he decides the repair is not covered.
— For more context, after all of this incredible aggravation with the plumber, I bought the flapper system myself for $ 20 and was able to perform a complete repair within 1 hour. The flapper system has a different set of parts and works differently than the broken mechanism that it replaced. However, both mechanism are functionally equal. In instances where a broken item can’t be replaced with exactly the same thing, an comparable /​functionally equivalent item will be used, which is exactly what I ended up having to do myself.
«He also did not pay his copay»
— Another egregious and 100% false statement. The copay was paid up-​front.